Results 261 - 280 of 280
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Scribe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | His Spirit or Moses'? | Ps 106:33 | Scribe | 41381 | ||
Interesting. KJV says. so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes: 33 Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips. But the fact is they provoked God's Spirit and Moses' | ||||||
262 | Creation - did it take 6 days? | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 41380 | ||
Yes. And becuase God knew there would be false teachers that would try and invent doubtful doctrines about a day being a million years etc. He clarified it for all eternity by stating this phrase over and over in the creation account in gen 1 Genesis 1:13 3 And the evening and the morning were the third day. each time he says ..evening and the morning were the 2nd, third, forth etc day So what else is Evening and morning but the cycle of a normal day. Praise Him for His Power He is a God that can speak and a world is born. He is unlimited in Power and Might. He is not a space alien of advanced technology. He is GOD ALMIGHTY and He is so Great he Created what we see as an endless universe of billions of stars just for man :) Praise His Great and Holy Name. |
||||||
263 | do not be drunk with strong wine | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 41379 | ||
Hosea 4:11 1 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart. | ||||||
264 | What are the 10 commandments? | Ex 34:28 | Scribe | 41378 | ||
Exodus 34:28 8 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Deuteronomy 4:13 3 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. Deuteronomy 10:4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. You know I actually heard a preacher on the radio once that stated "Did you know no where in the Bible does it say there are only Ten commandments. There were many more than that.." etc oooph!!! I am sure he was embarrased after the radio show ;) |
||||||
265 | Where is it found in the Bible? | Lev 11:3 | Scribe | 41355 | ||
Leviticus 11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. | ||||||
266 | Who's with Him? | Rev 17:1 | Scribe | 41130 | ||
The saints. The Lord Cometh with 10000 of His saints to execute judgement on the ungodly.. Jude | ||||||
267 | Old Testament Law | Jer 7:23 | Scribe | 41128 | ||
There is a surge of cult groups in America today that are what you might call gentiles that are Jewish wannabees. They are trying to mix christianity with Jewish traditions. They believe you should keep feasts and sabbath and spell God's name right and many other such legalistic things. They have scriptures for their teachings but taken from the Law and they pick and choose which ones apply to us today and which ones don't. For instance they will use the description of a feast day that was written at the same time that instructions were given for what a woman should do on her cycle. They will reject the part about the women for today and keep the feast one. This exposes their lack of honesty in really wanting to OBEY God as they say. They also like to learn Hebrew words and I suppose they think that we will speak Hebrew in heaven. Many of the things they say we must do are the very things Paul and the apostles already discussed and decided gentiles did not need to do such as circumcision. What do they do with Paul? They don't like Paul very much. They say listen to Jesus not Paul. This is strange to me since what they are really saying is listen to Matthew not Paul because Jesus wrote no new testament books so their letters in red are from Mark, or John or someone else. So if they were honest they would say "I believe Matthew was inspired but not Paul." But they say go by what Jesus said not Paul, becuase this has a little bit of convincing power to a weak and ignorant mind which they are trying to ensnare. These modern false Jews love to claim Jewish heritage and they have none. There is nothing new about the agenda of the demonic powers behind these Hebrew Roots cults and Name cults. They have this common trait of satisfying a smitten conscience with another sacrifice than that which is provided for sin which is Jesus Christ. They want to do a certain easy to keep legal practice such as church on Saturday and celebrating feast day and addressing God as G-d when they write so that their conscience is appeased and they feel a sense of righteousness. Now this is exposed as flesh because the emphasis is on the flesh impulse to be an elite sort of "christian" that has an inside revelation and that is special to God in that they are the keepers of the special laws when others are not. This is all flesh. It is not faith in God. It is dangerous because it has to deny the teachings of Paul which God chose to lay down so many fundamental doctrinal truths for the christian to live by. It is also dangerous because the spiritual elitism it produces is not the Love of Christ as taught by Paul and they find themselves spending more energy trying to convert Christians to their group than they do the lost to Christ which is always a tell tale sign of a cult. God Bless you ALL |
||||||
268 | christians don't sin??? | 1 John 3:9 | Scribe | 41124 | ||
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. You have to read the context of John 3 and you will notice that John has already stated that if we sin we can ask for forgiveness and recieve cleansing from all unrrighteousness. If John says that then it must be that he does not mean it as it may sound. John would not say. If you sin ... do this.. and also say.. you cannot sin it is not possible. He would be contradicting himself and only an insane person would speak that way. So what other meaning can you apply to someone saying You cannot do something? It would have to be that same way we speak when we say "I just can't do that" meaning not that it is a physical impossibility for us but that we cannot bring our selves to do such a thing. So if you read the verse in that light you see that John is saying...If you are born of God, (by the word of God) the Word of God is internalized within you by that supernatural thing that God does whereby with the eternal Word of God he is working in you that which He pleases, and you will not be able if you are born of God to stay in sin, you will have to repent, you will have a nervous breakdown if you don't. You will find that the Spirit of God in you as your own thoughts is screaming in your spiritual ears.. "I can't do this, I Can't keep doing this, I can't live this way, This is not what God has called me to., I am never going to be happy doing this, I will never have peace until I repent... etc) But on the other point about Paul. Read the context of what Paul wrote in Romans 7-8. You will notice a definite topic and that is that of living under the law and why he was guilty of sin and how that the Faith live freed him from sin and the bondage of sin he was never free from under his religious efforts to try to be righteous. Paul never taught that christians that are Born again have to live with a struggle of always sinning when they really don't want to. |
||||||
269 | Napkin? | John 20:7 | Scribe | 41118 | ||
I do not have a scripture for it, but it sounds as though it is saying that the napkin was where it would be if His body had just risen and left the clothing where it would be if it did not move when His Supernatural Glorified body arose. The head cloth (napkin) was lying there where His head would be and seperate from the rest of the linens where the body would be. The position of the clothing seems to be a testimony that a miracle had taken place of His Body coming through the clothing and leaving it exactly where it was. | ||||||
270 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 41115 | ||
One of the reasons most commonly given by the Church of Christ denomination (and it is a denomination in every definition of the word even if they say they are not a denomination) that the church should not use musical instruments in worship is that the New Testament does not mention the christians using musical instruments in worship. This is not true. I do not know why they say this it is an out right falsehood. It is a tremendously flagrant error. Here is the reference. Revelation 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. Now if in heaven, where the saints are in the MOST Reverential state of worship they can be in they are using harps then it must be a very Holy thing. Now we do not HAVE to know how to play music on a stringed instrument now to be able to worship Him. But then we will all be able to. Praise God. That't good news for all you people that wish you had learned to play a guitar in order to worship the Lord with sweet music as you sing. No the fair question is not should musical instruments be allowed in worship but rather "can I worship God with just as much "will of God on earth as it is in heaven" without a harp?" and of course the answer is yes, but it would be a fair question since you read that the saints that get the victory over satan are worshippin in heaven with a harp. Now the arguement of not reading of harps in the book of Acts is very weak. We do not KNOW for sure that the New Testament saints did not use a harp or a lyre or a tamborine. There were Jews that did so it could be that there were NT saints that used them in worship. However we do KNOW for sure that the New Testament saints did not use Air Conditioning in their meetings. So in hot months they did sweat it out. So if the logic that we should not use instruments because we do not read of the church in Acts using it, why does not this logic apply to Air Conditioning. I have strong historical evidence that New Testament christians (especially Jews) would have used tamborines, and I have many verses in Psalms and even the prophets that show God was pleased with Praising Him with instruments and I have the resurrected glorified saints in their perfect condition with heavenly instrument of which the earthly harp is only a type. So I have strong biblical evidence that instruments dedicated to worshipping God are acceptable and encouraged by God. (also remember that Lucifer before his fall was discribed as having instruments as part of his being and he was the anointed cherub that covereth of which we see a type in the Cherubs that worship the Lord and say Holy Holy Holy, so again we see that God has made a point even in the angelic creation to use instruments in worship) As I stated I have strong Biblical evidence that God is pleased with instruments of music in worship but I have no Biblical evidence for Air Conditioning. We know that first church did NOT use Air Conditioning when they worshipped. So why is it that the Church of Christ denomination can use Air Conditioning in worship and we know the first church did not. and yet be so adamently against instruments and we DO NOT KNOW for sure that the church in Acts never used instruments. If they were honest in this approach they would not use Air Conditioning in worship. I think this exposes a possible false motive behind the COC teaching. It is the same motive that drives them to state that if you are not a member of the COC you are not the Church. |
||||||
271 | May I Ask Again... Bible Software? | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 41097 | ||
My favorite software is free. Crosswalk.com Bible It has as many resources as most Programs I also use BibleSoft Library edition. It is huge. I have a lot of trouble with it as it relates to programming errors. I have had this trouble with Version 2 and 3 and in different Win 98, WinNT, and forget XP. I did not get support when I emailed them on it. But the program is great if it stays working. |
||||||
272 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 41090 | ||
Paul listed being a drunkard (the simple act of using alcohol to get intoxicated and all the wicked thoughts and impulses that goes with it) as one of the life style sins that will cause even one who wants to number themselves with christians as a brother, as a sin that will keep them out of the kingdom of eternal heaven. If getting drunk is such an heinous sin to God then Why would Jesus give them alcohol of that strength to drink? Could they get drunk if they drank enough of it? Sure, it did contain alcohol, but not of the same strength as what you get at the liquour store. The fact that the fruit of the vine before it is fermented is healthy is undeniable. This too is called wine in Biblical context. The fact is that it would ferment also, But then you know that even to the Jews the person that drank to get drunk was considered a low life and a sinner. Historical evidence abounds that they did dilute the fermented wine for the purpose of both stretching the volumen and to also weaken the alcohol. If you drank even a few glasses you did not get drunk or even intoxicated. If you drank enought you would but then you would be obviously trying to be a sinner. So those that drank a healthy portion of wine diluted in this manner were not in anyway being evil nor did they poison their brains but instead recieved the nurishment of the grape. If you want to use the Biblical pattern of drinking wine and are not going to let anyone make you feel guilty, at least be honest enought to dilute your wine bottle. Add a 50percent mixture of water, maybe even more in lean times. If you notice that your desire for drinking the wine vanishes after you dilute it. Then it is possible your motivation for drinking wine was not Biblically based but a secret sin you were harboring to "feel" the effects of the alcohol, which even among the Jews was considered a scandulous thing. God Bless you ALL. |
||||||
273 | sin is a sin? | 1 John 5:13 | Scribe | 40995 | ||
You know the verse most often used to say that a christian will not sin is the one that says His seed remains in us and we cannot sin. The simple truth is that a born again christian with a history of serving and enjoying God, who falls into a sin will be so miserable that he CANNOT do it or CANNOT STAY there in that sin but must repent and turn back to the One he loves and wants to fellowship with, God. It does not mean a christian will never sin again, but is more expressive as when we say I just can't do that anymore. We don't mean it is physically impossible for us to do the thing but that we just can't endure the misery of sin. A person who is born of God cannot sin. (Cannot just walk in sin and live with it.) the Word of God the eternal seed will work on him until he humbles himself in repentance and shakes off that sin and finds peace again. The man who is born again will gaurd that peace and will not want anything to disturb it. This is where I agree with my Baptist brothers that say a born again saint cannot lose their salvation. The truth is that a Born Again saint will be too miserable in sin to stay there (howbeit one of the reasons they are so miserable is that while in sin they know they are not being saved and have not sure steadfast assurance of their eternal security) This person that may be holding on to a secret lust will have not assurance of salvation. Why? Because he is indeed in danger of Hell Fire and he knows it. |
||||||
274 | where was Jesus? | Eph 4:8 | Scribe | 40940 | ||
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) After searching what this lower part of the earth means in scripture I am convinced that Jesus descended there during the three days and did indeed release captives and this is why it was said saints were seen raised and in jerusalem. I don't fully comprehend that part but it happened. And I think it has to do with legality of fulfilling all things and satisfying the Justice and Judgement of a Holy God. There is more to the spirit realm than we comprehend. |
||||||
275 | Contrary Accounts of Jesus' Genealogy. | Rom 1:3 | Scribe | 40937 | ||
This is not an error. It proves the fact that Jesus is the promised messaih. "Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah." Not an error but rather and exacting particular that if it were a false book the writer would have left this out. But since it is indeed from God it even details how that the legal right was transferred, which you can read about in the Old Testament. God is so awesome! |
||||||
276 | Different Claims On Joseph's Father | Rom 1:3 | Scribe | 40936 | ||
This is pretty simple actually. The problem comes from 'misreading' one small part. 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, 24 Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph, 25 Which was [the son] of Mattathias, which was [the son] of Amos, At first you think it is saying Joseph is the son of Heli, but it is really saying Jesus is the son of Heli, in the same sense that he was supposed to be the son of Joseph, but we know that He was born of a virgin. So it could be said like this.. Jesus was the son of Joseph, and Jesus was the son of Heli, and Jesus was the son of Matthat, and Jesus was the son of etc, until you get to Adam and see that Jesus was that seed of the woman that would bruise the serpents head. Matthews point is not tracing Joseph to David, and Lukes Mary to David, that has been said but I don't see it. The obvious truth when you read the accounts is that Matthew stops at Abraham and that is what Matthew is pointing out, through Joseph's lineage, and Luke goes to Adam through Mary's. "Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David; and therefore he begins with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent’s head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary". |
||||||
277 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 39779 | ||
It is an english translation. If they were to translate all Hebrew words to Hebrew. Would not that be an exercise in futility? I suppose there is a degree of sincere reverence in many that wonder which name is correct when addressing God. But since Jesus said Eloi on the cross, when he called out to My God., where does it end? We are talking about God here not man. God does not go by a proper name like Tom or Joe. When men asked God's name he answered with Covenant personalities. I AM, which means I am all that you need God to be to you. If you will obey me in faith | ||||||
278 | Apostles Spirit-led? | Acts 2:38 | Scribe | 39516 | ||
One thing that seems to clear it all up is when people read books. Soon they find that the term "in the name of" means by the authority of, not what sounds come out of your mouth. So both verses are saying the same thing. Go in the authority of God. Who is the Father Son and Holy Ghost, and doing something in the Name of Jesus is the same thing as doing it in the Name of God, or if I write it in a more wordy manner "doing it in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost" The error of this discussion among christians is that it hinges on ignorance of meaning of the phrase. This idea of it being some sort of "spell you Speak" was never what the disciples meant when they wrote about "in the name of" The term was used all around them at the time as it has been to this day when you hear someone say "Open up in the name of the Law" and if it is a policeman you do not even think for a moment that His exact syntax needs to be correct. You do not say I am not going to open up becuase he did not say "Open up in the name of the Police in Mayberry" No you get sort of anxious and realize that the POWER of the LAW is at your door and you must open or you might be face first on the ground in cuffs. I am amazed at how embedded this strange concept of speaking the words is what carries the power. The Law is powerful not becuase of the words of the Officer, but the Power behind the badge. You are going to open or more officers will come and they will enforce whatever law it is they are trying to enforce. You will not stand against them. When I go baptize in the Name of Jesus I go in the Name of Jesus because I am called. I go because I am sent. I have God with me and He has commanded me to Baptize. So if I say nothing at all when I dunk the new believer, (haveing taught him previous to the dunk to believe on Jesus) I am still baptizing in Jesus Name (or GOD) or Father Son and Holy Ghost, because he ordained me and sent me. | ||||||
279 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Scribe | 39506 | ||
Understand that the context is talking about mockers that come and speak against the coming of the redeemer to judge the world for ungodliness. These mockers were in Enochs, day and he contended with them also. The same devils motivated the men that came against Enoch and that mocked the promise that Enoch prophesied. That the Lord would come with 10,000 of his saints to execute judgement upon all....(see Jude.) Then also others mocked after the flood, being ignorant that the Flood was "a coming" for those mockers on the other side of the flood. Then Peter states that don't be ignorant of the fact that God is not slow concerning His Promise of the Coming of the Lord, both in salvation for us and in Judgement for the mockers.. Because with the Lord a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day to Him.. Meaning in my opinion and within this context that "in the light of eternity where God dwells He is not being slow." Or .."so what if it has been 2000 years , what is that to God. It is still a short time. I do not think that God was trying to introduce a new mathematical formula. This is not the meaning of the phrase to me, to somehow present a new way of calculating time. That is not what He was saying. He is quoting an old testament verse and when you read that Old Testament verse no one ever says that God is meaning to calculate one day for a thousand years for prophetic time tables... Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Now after you see that Peter is quoting Psalms 90:4 do you see how the spirit of the message is that even though it may seem like a lot of time has past since the prophesy of the Coming of the Lord in the Old Testament was Given, and this is the same promise renewed in the New Testament... that even so it is only a short time in God's view and soon to be Our view when are there with Him. Praise God. Live ready for the Coming of the Lord draweth nigh! |
||||||
280 | WHO SAW THE H.S. AT JESUS BAPTISIM | NT general Archive 1 | Scribe | 39504 | ||
When I read it I see it as visible to all. The voice from heaven was heard by all and so there is no reason to "guess" at an illogical thought that only John saw the 'dove'. If I write such an account and do not tell you otherwise you are going to think I am saying that the dove was seen by all that were within eyesight. If I meant anything else I would be careful to make sure you knew with words such as "but no one else saw it but John" this is becuase we understand that that would be something that would need to be explained, however saying and "everyone saw it" is not necessary because we would expect that everyone saw it. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] |